A new record minimum for arctic sea ice

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:07 PM GMT on November 18, 2009

Share this Blog
4
+

Arctic sea ice reached a new record minimum during the first half of November, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (Figure 1). The record low ice extent this month is the first extended period of record minimum arctic sea ice since 2007. The new record minimum suggests that the gains in ice seen over the past two years were probably a temporary fluctuation due to normal year-to-year variability in the weather, and that the long-term arctic sea ice decline observed since the 1970s is continuing.


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent up to November 16, 2009, compared to the record low year of 2007 and the average from 1979 - 2000. Sea ice extent over the past ten days has fallen below the record minimum observed in 2007. Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

What caused the new record low?
The record low was due to very warm air invading the Arctic during October, in combination with the unusually warm ocean temperatures that have prevailed in the region over the past few decades. The warm air temperatures were primarily the result of an intense series of low pressure systems in the Arctic Ocean, north of Siberia, that worked in concert with a very strong high pressure system north of Alaska to drive warm air from Central Asia poleward over the past six weeks. The strong storms and unusual pressure pattern brought winds of about 5 mph above average to large regions of the Arctic Ocean, which helped break up existing ice and kept ice from freezing as much as usual. With all that warm air flowing into the Arctic, the cold air that was there had to go somewhere else, and that "somewhere else" was North America. The U.S. recorded its 3rd coldest October on record in 2009, thanks to cold air flowing out of the Arctic. The temperature and sea level pressure patterns over the Northern Hemisphere for October (Figure 2) were highly anomalous, with temperatures up to 27°F (15°C) above average over the Arctic Ocean, and sea level pressures up to 11 mb above average. The atmospheric circulation pattern has shifted over the past two weeks, with the result that warm air from Central Asia is no longer being pumped into the Arctic so vigorously, nor is cold air from the Arctic streaming southward into North America. As a result, temperature anomalies in the Arctic are beginning to decline, and sea ice extent later this month will probably rise above the record minimums observed in 2007.



Figure 2. Departure of surface air temperature and surface pressure from average for October 2009. Surface temperatures in the Arctic were up to 27°F (15°C) above average over the Arctic Ocean, due to sea ice loss. The strongest anomalies occurred where sea ice was missing from its usual position, though the entire Arctic was affected. The clockwise flow of air around the anomalously strong high pressure system north of Alaska (labeled "H" in the right-hand image) helped drive a flow of very warm air from Central Asia into the Arctic, and a very cold flow of air out of the Arctic southward into North America. Image credit: NOAA/ESRL.

How will the November sea ice loss affect next summer's sea ice loss?
A record 19% of the Arctic sea ice cover this summer in the Arctic was over 2 years old, far below the 1981 - 2000 average of 52%. In the summer of 2009, NASA researcher Ron Kwok and colleagues from the University of Washington in Seattle published satellite data showing that mean winter arctic ice thickness declined by 48% between 1980 and 2008. The loss accelerated over the past five years, with the ice losing 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) of thickness between 2004 and 2008, finishing at 6.2 feet thick. This remarkable thinning was confirmed in May 2009 by the Catlin Arctic Survey, a 9-week, 435 km expedition across the Canadian Arctic led by polar scientist Professor Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge. Wadhams' expedition found that most of the route had first year ice just 5.9 feet (1.8 meters) thick. With El Niño conditions crossing from the moderate to strong category over the past two weeks in the Eastern Pacific, the prospects for a much warmer than usual winter in the Arctic have increased, likely setting the stage for continued record or near-record minimum sea ice extent and thickness into next spring. The arctic sea ice will be very vulnerable to a new record minimum next summer if warmer than average temperatures are seen over the Arctic.

Sea ice loss causes stronger storms in the Arctic
The stronger storms over the Arctic Ocean this fall were due, in part, to the loss of sea ice. In a 2009 article titled, Extraordinary September Arctic sea ice reductions and their relationships with storm behavior over 1979-2008, Simmonds and Keay found that September storms over the East Arctic intensified by about 1 mb over the past 30 years and had grown about 50 miles larger in diameter, thanks to all the extra heat energy supplied by more open water due to recent losses in Arctic sea ice. These stronger storms may create a positive feedback loop that will lead to even more sea ice loss: reduced sea ice drives stronger storms, whose winds break up sea ice, creating even more warm water to feed stronger storms with stronger winds, and so on. Now that the arctic sea ice is 48% thinner than 30 years ago, this effect will increase in importance, since thinner ice breaks up more readily in strong winds.

Expect an ice-free Arctic by 2030
In a press release put out by the Catlin Arctic Survey, Professor Wadhams said, "The Catlin Arctic Survey data supports the new consensus view--based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition--that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years, and that much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years". In their 2009 report on this year's Arctic sea ice minimum, National Snow and Ice Data Center Director and Senior Scientist Dr. Mark Serreze said, "It's nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there's no reason to think that we're headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades". At the December 2008 American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting, the world's largest climate change conference, sea ice expert Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski of the Navy Postgraduate School blamed 60% of the melting during the past decade on heat brought in by ocean currents, and projected that summertime arctic sea ice would completely disappear by 2016. Dr. Jim Overland of NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory was more conservative, projecting a 2030 demise of arctic sea ice. He thought we would be "hanging around where we are for a while", and thought it would take two more unusual summers like the "perfect storm" of 2007 to push the system to an ice-free state.

The consequences
There were 88 presentations on arctic sea ice at the 2008 AGU conference. None of the presenters expressed the view that the current long-term decline in arctic sea ice was almost entirely natural, or that we can expect the decline to reverse this century. Sea ice experts do blame part of the decline on natural variability in the weather, but we wouldn't be where we are now without the warming caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. One view (Stroeve et al., 2007) is that human-emitted greenhouse gases are responsible for 47 - 57% of the arctic sea ice loss since 1979. Heat-absorbing black soot from fires and pollution settling on the white ice is thought to also be a significant contributor.

The consensus I heard at the AGU conference among arctic sea ice experts was that the summertime sea ice will be gone by 2030. If they are correct, we can expect a period of significantly accelerated global climate change to begin 10 - 20 years from now. Arctic sea ice is one of the critical components maintaining the stability of our current climate. Once the the ice is gone, the climate will become unstable, with highly unpredictable results. It is true that Earth's past has many examples of warmer climates that evolved due to natural causes where life flourished, and we shouldn't fear the new, stable climate we will eventually arrive at centuries from now. However, life on Earth is adapted to the current climate. The changes that will occur during the transition will be extremely disruptive to Earth's ecosystems and the humans that rely on them for life. If one were to rate the destructive capability of climate change the way we rate hurricanes, I would rate current climate change at the "Invest" or "tropical disturbance" stage--the climate change storm is just beginning to organize. But the coming climate change storm is destined to hit our children with the full fury of intensifying hurricane.

References
Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock. 2009, "Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958-2008", Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15501, doi:10.1029/2009GL039035

Simmonds, I., and K. Keay (2009), Extraordinary September Arctic sea ice reductions and their relationships with storm behavior over 1979.2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19715, doi:10.1029/2009GL039810.

Stroeve, J., M.M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze, Arctic sea ice decline:Faster than forecast", GRL 34 L09501, doi:1029/2007GL029703, 2007.

The road to Copenhagen
By some accounts, the future of the world will be at stake this December, when the crucial U.N. Climate Change Conference will be held December 7 - 18 in Copenhagen, Denmark. At that meeting, the leaders of the world will gather to negotiate an agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The new agreement will be the world's road map for dealing with climate change, and the stakes are huge. Dr. Ricky Rood, author of Wunderground's climate change blog, will be there, and Wunderground has given the University of Michigan a grant to send a student who will also blog for us. I have a number of posts I'm planning in the run-up to Copenhagen, including:

- Impact of arctic sea ice loss on Northern Hemisphere winter weather
- The Manufactured Doubt industry
- What global warming skeptics say about arctic sea ice
- Is higher CO2 more beneficial for Earth's ecosystems?

I'll also have an end-of-hurricane season summary on November 30, plus posts on whatever breaking weather stories occur. My next post will be Friday, when I plan to summarize the global weather last month, which was the 2nd - 6th warmest October on record.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 85 - 35

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

74. Got any graphs from other stations in the area?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
Post 74, Atmo.
Let us assume that the instrument is correct, and that temps show no rise.
What other conditions are needed to cause ice loss?


Anti freeze? LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:
Post 67. Taistelupitu. Good Post. Puts a couple of things into perspective.


Sure does Pottery, squelching the fundamental desires of those developing nations citizens will not be an easy task. The velocity of those desires is ever increasing and will provide formidable resistance to any initiative to slow them down. Just my take. Thanks also 67.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Just running the numbers according to taistelutipu. The population of the mention countries produces enough co2 emissions to cover a 50 sq miler area with nothing but co2 from the ground to the edge of the atmosphere assuming that the specific gravity of co2 is the same as the normal gas mixture of the atmosphere. I thought way too hard on that one
Member Since: September 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 263
Quoting indianrivguy:
The bottom line for me is this.. the sea level is rising, this is bad. You can argue until you are blue in the face about what exactly does it mean to say the planet is warming.. compared to what? the last ten years.. twenty.. a hundred?? the sun, and thus our planet has cycles that we do not fully understand so who's to say how much of the present condition is due to man. I think we are guilty as hell, but All that matters to me is that sea levels are rising. You can argue trends, cause and effects with everyone cherry picking studies to support "their" side but the unalterable fact is that we are as a specie are about to be pushed even further inland.

Goldman Sachs invested in carbon credits... that foretells bad things for you and me.


Well said...the numbers don't matter, because anyone can rub the numbers to match their requirements...it's about what's happening, in the long run.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
I have been out with the flu, no I didn't kiss 456.



Dang, Atmo, I had a David Bowie-Mick Jagger fantasy going there...

Do you know which flu you had? Sorry you were ill; hope you feel much better.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
Post 74, Atmo.
Let us assume that the instrument is correct, and that temps show no rise.
What other conditions are needed to cause ice loss?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting atmoaggie:
I have been out with the flu, no I didn't kiss 456.

I have posted this here before...instrumentation issues going back in time aside, just how could 60ish years of temp obs at Baffin Island show no warming trend whatsoever. I say instrumentation issues aside, because it is tough to come up with a siting issue that causes a low bias.



That is here:


No warming at all, right there on the edge of the lowest Arctic sea ice extend on record (30 years at best case scenario) and an about-to-be-ice-free condition?

Seriously, how?

Or is this just another rural surface station, which all of the warming seems to bypass for reasons unknown.


I see your point and it would have to be some kind of instrumentation issue; one thing that all sides agree to is the ice minimus, whether we agree as to cause or not
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The bottom line for me is this.. the sea level is rising, this is bad. You can argue until you are blue in the face about what exactly does it mean to say the planet is warming.. compared to what? the last ten years.. twenty.. a hundred?? the sun, and thus our planet has cycles that we do not fully understand so who's to say how much of the present condition is due to man. I think we are guilty as hell, but All that matters to me is that sea levels are rising. You can argue trends, cause and effects with everyone cherry picking studies to support "their" side but the unalterable fact is that we are as a specie are about to be pushed even further inland.

Goldman Sachs invested in carbon credits... that foretells bad things for you and me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Post 67. Taistelupitu. Good Post. Puts a couple of things into perspective.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I have been out with the flu, no I didn't kiss 456.

I have posted this here before...instrumentation issues going back in time aside, just how could 60ish years of temp obs at Baffin Island show no warming trend whatsoever. I say instrumentation issues aside, because it is tough to come up with a siting issue that causes a low bias.



That is here:


No warming at all, right there on the edge of the lowest Arctic sea ice extend on record (30 years at best case scenario) and an about-to-be-ice-free condition?

Seriously, how?

Or is this just another rural surface station, which all of the warming seems to bypass for reasons unknown.
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
taistelutipu, you have mail dear
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Jeff9641:


You are so correct about the record warm October but now that we are in November Alaska and Northwestern Canada is experencing record cold temperatures. The problem is that we are experencing more record highs than record cold temps on average over the last 50 years.


Again, the bounce effect...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting taistelutipu:
Hallo Flood, wie geht's? Mir geht's gut aber ich habe viel Arbeit.

30. beell, thanks for bringing up this image. The graphic shows that China's CO2 emission per capita is still a lot lower compared to other industrialised countries but it is on the rise and that's the problem. Whereas countries like Germany and the UK have managed to lower their emissions to some extent, the USA have remained more or less stable over the last years, however, China and Spain are on the rise. China is the far bigger issue because they have over 1.2 billion (census 2000, probably more by now) inhabitants compared to the US with only a quarter of that, i.e. 300 million and Spain is even smaller, only 46.6 million. Therefore, if nothing is done, China will soon become the biggest CO2 emitting country and overtake the USA.


Mir geht's gut freundin!

Haven't seen you in a while, you must be REALLY busy!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
67. Impressive work; many thanks.
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
LOL @ 66 :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chucktown:


I'm not closing my eyes to anything, I am very well aware of what the media is shoving down our throats about global warming. Hell, I'm part of the media, but I don't agree with it. Going back to P451 comment about data set, why are we basing the recent "warming" and increase in CO2 levels on about 100 years or so. Do we really know what happenned in 1250 or in 1367 with regards to the earth's CO2 level and temperature. Ice core samples are just one measure and really don't have anything to compare it to.


The problem is that in 1250 or 1367 man wasn;t burning 300 million gallons of hydrocarbons a day and emitting the subsequent CO2 and other happy gases into the atmosphere.

It's not worrying about things that have gotten us here, and will have us far further down the slope, if the numbers are correct, by the time our children are in our position. I love my kids and I want the best for them, to the point that I will take maesures out of an over-abundance of caution because to me their welfare to some degree outweighs my own
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
56. Ossqss
I based my conclusion on the image posted by beell, comment 30, which shows the development of the per capita emission in several countries. Germany has managed to lower them according to the diagram, the UK a little, the US remained quite stable since the 1990s, Australia went up, Spain and China as well.

The approximate figures per capita are:
USA: just below 20 metric tons
Australia: ca. 18
Germany and the UK: just below 10
Spain: ca. 8
China: ca. 4
India and Bangladesh: 1 or below.

When you now multiply them with the number of inhabitants, you get the following approximate totals (rounded off):
USA: 20 x 300 million = 6 billion
Australia: 18 x ca. 20 million = 360 million
Germany: 10 x 82 million = 820 million
UK: 10 x 60 million = 600 million
Spain: 8x 47 million = 376 million
China 4 x 1.3 billion = 5.2 billion
India 1 x 1.2 billion = 1.2 billion
Bangladesh 0.2 x 162 million = 32.4 million

So if we look at the totals we see that the US emit the most CO2 despite being only the 3rd largest country with less than a quarter compared to the population of China which, however, is closing in fast.

My point is that the countries with the largest populations have the greatest influence on the global emissions of CO2. If China were to emit as much as the US per capita, that would result in 20 x 1.3 billion = 26 billion, more than all the other countries together on that list.

And do not to forget that the developing countries often use more polluting technologies in their industrial production, less filters, less energy efficient processes, chemicals that are banned in the more developed countries etc. The influence the developing countries with their large populations can have on the global environment should not be underestimated.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Chucktown:

The energy is not the same as when the earth was formed. What about the energy that we have used to get rockets into orbit. Nit really enough to make much difference.

This GW thing kind of reminds me to something a Great Aunt used to tell me many years ago. Her thuoghts were that every time we sent a rocket into space, we were putting a whole in the atmosphere and that some day it was going to cause a problem. If she was alive today show would say that is what is causing the GW. HA HA.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting beell:


There does seem to be a strong correlation between CO2 and a comfortable life.



Thanks, I did not see that.

Has anyone viewed any info on the U.N. Agenda 21 item relating to sustainable developement? Kinda related and disturbing to boot. L8R
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
One last thought on the cure for the co2 emissions. Lets make sure the cure is not worse than the disease. Mankind seems to be an expert at making things worse while trying to repair them.
Member Since: September 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 263
Please even if you forget that we have cut about half the forest down in the world which sequester carbon turning that into co2 emissions,to actually argue about whether we are putting more co2 in the air than ever before is just ludicrous and tells you why we are in so much peril over the short time. People have always been self interested and the ones who are not, usually end up dead. The problem today is to many people on the planet with to many conflicting self interest. At some point we will end up with a bigger war over limited resources possible taking care of a lot of our problems, although it wont be pretty.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting taistelutipu:
Hallo Flood, wie geht's? Mir geht's gut aber ich habe viel Arbeit.

30. beell, thanks for bringing up this image. The graphic shows that China's CO2 emission per capita is still a lot lower compared to other industrialised countries but it is on the rise and that's the problem. Whereas countries like Germany and the UK have managed to lower their emissions to some extent, the USA have remained more or less stable over the last years, however, China and Spain are on the rise. China is the far bigger issue because they have over 1.2 billion (census 2000, probably more by now) inhabitants compared to the US with only a quarter of that, i.e. 300 million and Spain is even smaller, only 46.6 million. Therefore, if nothing is done, China will soon become the biggest CO2 emitting country and overtake the USA.


There does seem to be a strong correlation between CO2 and a comfortable life.
Member Since: September 11, 2007 Posts: 145 Comments: 16919
56. Good questions, re Population Growth. Hope somebody can answer.

Nice flurry of intelligent activity on the blog today.

Please continue...but has anyone heard from the Portlight guys? I checked the Portlight website first, and I don't see an update, so figure they're busy. Just wondering if they're still in Virginia and how things are there.

ADD-ON: Bureaucracy, media, "assessing" continues...grrrr, c'mon already JMO

VAemergency.com Sit. & Spot Reports
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918


Atlantis is Now Hard Docked to the ISS.


12 Humans are now in Earth Orbit aboard the ISS.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chucktown:


When we talk about matter, energy is inclusive. The joules of energy that it takes to melt ice is called the latent heat of fusion. That energy just doesn't evaporate into the air, its still there, just in a different form. The total weight and amount of kinetic and potential energy on the earth is the same as it was the day the planet was formed - regardless if you believe in evolution or Christian Creationism.

This is equal to approximately 144 BTU per pound with water going from the liquid to solid state or vice versa. 960 BTU per pound from liquid to vapor. This simple fact is why evaporation is the preferred method for cooling systems.
The earth still has an infinite source of energy.
Member Since: September 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 263
Hummm, is pollution, GW, sea ice, take your pick, just a symptom of the root problem of population growth. Is it better to calculate CO2 per capita emissions or aggregate emissions per country? Is the trend in in per capita emissions going down in growing countries or up? How does the gross emissions and per capita trending of China compare to the US ? Just curious :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
26. um, i wasn't aware that Newton developed the Laws of Thermodynamics or at least they didn't mention that in my Thermo classes in college :) but i did go to a cow college, so who knows! ;)

i think you cross-pollinated the Laws of Thermodynamics with Newton's Laws of Motion :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hallo Flood, wie geht's? Mir geht's gut aber ich habe viel Arbeit.

30. beell, thanks for bringing up this image. The graphic shows that China's CO2 emission per capita is still a lot lower compared to other industrialised countries but it is on the rise and that's the problem. Whereas countries like Germany and the UK have managed to lower their emissions to some extent, the USA have remained more or less stable over the last years, however, China and Spain are on the rise. China is the far bigger issue because they have over 1.2 billion (census 2000, probably more by now) inhabitants compared to the US with only a quarter of that, i.e. 300 million and Spain is even smaller, only 46.6 million. Therefore, if nothing is done, China will soon become the biggest CO2 emitting country and overtake the USA.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RobChemist:


While the second part of your statement regarding finite amount of energy is correct, the first is wrong. Newtonian Physics assumes that matter and energy cannot interconvert. Einsteinian Physics, via relativity, showed that matter and energy can be interconverted. This is the basis of nuclear power.

Regarding the loss of Arctic Sea ice and storms being a positive feedback loop, I am not sure that this is correct. Stronger storms clearly break up sea ice. But, they also have two other effects - they will cool the ocean surface more rapidly due to enhanced evaporative cooling via increased wind speeds and, potentially, enhanced convective processes. The cooling effect would provide a negative feedback brake on warming. Also, depending upon the precise wave and ice conditions, they can stack pieces of sea ice, creating effectively thicker sea ice and increasing the rate of new sea ice formation on the open water as compared to ice-covered water.


When we talk about matter, energy is inclusive. The joules of energy that it takes to melt ice is called the latent heat of fusion. That energy just doesn't evaporate into the air, its still there, just in a different form. The total weight and amount of kinetic and potential energy on the earth is the same as it was the day the planet was formed - regardless if you believe in evolution or Christian Creationism.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
@26
The earth does have a finite source of energy if you discount the energy absorbed from the sun everyday. The simple rule for climate change is whether that the earth releases or contains the energy that the sun produces and tends to impart upon the earth 24/7/365. We know that cloud cover can keep in or deflect the energy absorbed by the planet depending on the time of day said clouds are out. The simple fact is the GW crowd believes we are a net energy saver while the AGW crowd believes we are a net energy waster or are a neutral energy user.
Member Since: September 11, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 263
Quoting Chucktown:
... but the past generations didn't think about my generation to get this point...

(ME) Oh, so not true! Anyone else have relatives who were immigrants, or Depression-Era-Babies (DEBs), or relatives in other countries? My parents only had one car and we had no dryer for ages. I have an Aunt overseas who washed and dried plastic bags and never used a dryer (true, lived in a warm climate...but thought Americans were scandalous in their waste -- this was in the '70s!) Now some of this was to save money and give a better life for their children, some of it was sensible New England frugality, and some of it was just "waste not, want not." But the lessons learned were essentially the same as the ones we want to teach today about saving the planet.

and neither will I.

(ME) Sigh. You mentioned you have children.

I feel advancement in technology will eventually "catch up" to the politically driven global warming and will right itself in the next few hundred years.


I agree with your last sentence, mostly! (Exception perhaps for the politically driven part...) I'm not a Pollyanna, but try to be a half-glass full kind of person, because good things can and are still happening. We must refuse to give in to gloom and doom, or we will perish.

This is a GREAT article. Intertwines with sustainable development.

In Amazon (Brazilian Rain Forest), a Frustrated Search for Cancer Cures


Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 32 Comments: 1918
43. it's okay...i didn't report you! LOL put the other picture back :)

it did so much to foster discussion! LOL

just messin' with ya :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Presslord and myself will be attending the Cuban-US Hurricane Conference here in New Orleans Monday.

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY

1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 801

Washington, DC 20036-2000



The Center for International Policy Takes Pleasure in Inviting You to

A Conference on U.S.-Cuban Cooperation in Defending Against Hurricanes

To be held November 23, 2009, in New Orleans at River City Plaza, next to Mardi Gras World

1380 Port of New Orleans Place



2 p.m. Introduction by Wayne S. Smith of the Center for International Policy



2:15 2:45 p.m. Vital U.S.-Cuban Cooperation in Tracking Hurricanes and Warning of their Approach. Jose Rubiera, of the Cuban Meteorological Center (invited) and Lixion Avila of the U.S. Hurricane Center in Miami. Chaired by Jay Higginbotham, Archivist Emeritus of Mobile



2:45 4:00 p.m. - U.S.-Cuban Cooperation in the Face of Hurricanes. Dagoberto Rodriguez Barrera, Cuban Vice Minister of Foreign Relations (invited); Lt.General (Ret) Russel Honore, Former Commander of Joint Task Force Katrina; Lt. Col (Ret) Jerry Sneed, Director of Emergency Preparedness of Orleans Parish; Ivor van Heerden, Founder of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center; Robert Turner, Director of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority. Chaired by Wayne Smith, Center for International Policy.



4:00 4:30 p.m. The Growing Focus on Disaster Medicine and Disaster Management in Both the U.S. and Cuba. Dr. Guillermo Mesa Ridel, Director, Latin American Center for Disaster Medicine (invited); Dr. Alex Isakov, Founding Director of the Emory University Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response; Lt. Gen Russel Honore, Board Member of LSU%u2019s Stephenson Disaster Management Institute; Chaired by Randy Poindexter, Executive Director of International Cuba Society



4:30 4:45 p.m. President Obama's Prerogative, Despite the Embargo, to Authorize U.S. Companies to Sell Cuba Reconstruction Materials and Equipment. Robert L. Muse, Attorney, Muse and Associates



4:45 5:00 p.m. Shared Ecosystems: Opportunities for Increasing Environmental Cooperation and Collaboration between Cuba and the United States. Dan Whittle, Senior Attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund.



5:00 6:00 p.m. Open Discussion. Participants from the various delegations to Cuba, and other interested parties, are invited to comment and express opinions as to new initiatives and directions and how we could better organize to advance our objectives. Mr. Ky Luu, the Director of the Tulane University Disaster Resilience Leadership Academy, will have the first comment.



6:00 7:30 p.m. - Reception with cash bar in the Grand Oaks Mansion



The Center for International Policy wishes to express its appreciation to

Atlantic Philanthropies for the support which made this conference possible

How to get there:



Our conference is being held in the Iberville Reception Room in the River City Complex, next to the new Mardi Gras World site, which is not to be confused with Blaine Kerns Mardi Gras World on the West Bank. The new location is situated at the Upriver end of the Convention Center just beneath the Mississippi River Bridge, also known as the Crescent City Connection right next to the Port of New Orleans.



If arriving by I-90, exit Tchoupitoulas Street and drive Upriver following the signs to the Port Terminal. From Tchoupitoulas, turn onto Henderson Street, the long avenue lined with palm trees leading to the entrance to the Port of New Orleans and Mardi Gras World. Turn right upon arrival at Mardi Gras World and follow the signs to the Hurricane Conference. The River City Complex is at the far end of the Mardi Gras building. Park free and enter from the river side of the building to the Iberville Reception Room where our conference is being held.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
HHHhhmmm. A global warming blog??
Seems to me, that the general consensus is "well, there is no evidence to convince me as yet so it's all bunk. A Conspiracy even."
So carry on regardless. Someone else will deal with it. The status quo rules. Onward to more of the same.

I saw a comment yesterday, saying that the cost to convert to Metric would be too expensive, and all factories that make everything in the US would have to re-tool to "comply".
Excuse me?? The whole world is Metric, and I for one still buy the same sized sheet of plywood as before. Sizes do not change, just the method of measurement.
Fear of change is a real thing., for sure.
But I cannot understand why some people are so scarred of changing anything at all.
And pollutants, deforestation, waste, water supply and food supply are real issues that relate to weather, climate, and observed warming.
And food and water may be the first things to start to trouble people. It's not about how many hours we drive our cars. There are bigger issues involved.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Chucktown:
It all goes back to Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. The amount of usable energy within the planet is finite and we continue to decrease the amount of usable energy.


While the second part of your statement regarding finite amount of energy is correct, the first is wrong. Newtonian Physics assumes that matter and energy cannot interconvert. Einsteinian Physics, via relativity, showed that matter and energy can be interconverted. This is the basis of nuclear power.

Regarding the loss of Arctic Sea ice and storms being a positive feedback loop, I am not sure that this is correct. Stronger storms clearly break up sea ice. But, they also have two other effects - they will cool the ocean surface more rapidly due to enhanced evaporative cooling via increased wind speeds and, potentially, enhanced convective processes. The cooling effect would provide a negative feedback brake on warming. Also, depending upon the precise wave and ice conditions, they can stack pieces of sea ice, creating effectively thicker sea ice and increasing the rate of new sea ice formation on the open water as compared to ice-covered water.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
44. you denialist scum!

LOL j/k :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
nice post pat my head is not in the sand on this either just a bit skeptical... lol
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The warming of the Globe continues,regardless of the debate as to whats inducing it.

But I go with the Data,..as those Co2 and Co3 ,methane and pollutant "Fairies" that some think come out every night and scrub the Atmosphere clean with their Harry Potter wands,are slightly overwhelmed by Mans 24/7/365 assault on our atmosphere.


Copenhagen at Dusk..

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Mauritius Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory Number EIGHTEEN
PERTURBATION TROPICALE, FORMER ANJA (04-20092010)
16:00 PM Réunion November 18 2009
=========================================

At 12:00 PM, Tropical Disturbance, Former Anja (1003 hPa) located at 21.6S 66.3E has 10 minute sustained winds of 25 knots with gusts of 35 knots. The disturbance is reported as moving south-southeast at 15 knots

RSMC Dvorak Intensity: T2.0

Forecast and Intensity
======================
12 HRS: 26.9S 71.1E - 30 kts (se Comblant)
24 HRS: 30.4S 76.1E - (se Dissipant)

Additional Information
========================
The still fairly well defined low level vortex is now speeding up towards the south-southeast within the northwestern flow ahead of the cold front. Convection has not restarted over the center since more than 12 hours, consequently the system is now downgraded to a tropical disturbance status with maximum sustained winds of 25 knots. No major change in the general philosophy of the forecast: ANJA should merge within the cold front located to its southwest.

THIS IS THE FINAL TROPICAL CYCLONE ADVISORY ISSUED BY THE MAURITIUS METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE UNLESS REGENERATION OCCURS
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Floodman:


You're entitled to your opinion, but closing your eyes just makes the timing of the crash a mystery, it doesn't prevent it form happening.

Also, do you write checks for items before you know he money is in the account? Science hasn't caught up and if it doesn't you're writing a pretty big rubber check...


I'm not closing my eyes to anything, I am very well aware of what the media is shoving down our throats about global warming. Hell, I'm part of the media, but I don't agree with it. Going back to P451 comment about data set, why are we basing the recent "warming" and increase in CO2 levels on about 100 years or so. Do we really know what happenned in 1250 or in 1367 with regards to the earth's CO2 level and temperature. Ice core samples are just one measure and really don't have anything to compare it to.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
39. isn't IMDB great? LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pearlandaggie:
32. that would be a movie that i've never seen before! LOL (Steel Magnolias, i believe)


DING!DING!DING!

Thank you for playing...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
27.

Thanks, Hurricanejunky!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
well, it's certainly true that data is not driving the discussion these day! LOL
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am a full blooded south floridian born and raised and never put much trust in the weather forecast from day to day especially in the summer, it is either going to rain in the middle of the state or if either ocean breeze is strong enough going to rain on one of the coast lines. It has been that way for ever the tropics are somewhat predictable in the summer in south fla. Having said that and lived through every cane since 59 I would rather live anywhere else inland way inland if we are going to see an increase in violent hurricanes, if infact anyone can show me that the weather patterns are going to change so drastically in the next 10 to 20 years. I think I will go get my crystal ball....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
32. that would be a movie that i've never seen before! LOL (Steel Magnolias, i believe)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 85 - 35

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.